Who Should Own the Rosetta Stone?

Should the British Museum return the Rosetta Stone to Egypt? Should the export of a nation’s “cultural property” be banned? Should there be laws giving national governments ownership of any antiquity unearthed today within their borders?
In my Findings column I discuss the case against these policies — and the case for the museum curators and art dealers who have lately come in so for much criticism (and sometimes criminal prosecution). This may sound like a self-serving argument coming from someone in the United States, which has been a net importer of antiquities from abroad, and I acknowledge that there are certain artifacts that are best appreciated where they were created. I can understand the case for keeping the Great Pyramid in Egypt, the Pantheon in Rome and Independence Hall in Philadelphia.
But does that mean that every newly unearthed statue in Egypt must remain there? What would be wrong with allowing a copy of the Declaration of Independence to go abroad? If foreigners are eager to buy ancient Native American artifacts, or artifacts from NASA’s missions to the Moon or Elvis Presley’s concerts, why not let those objects be displayed and enjoyed by people overseas?
The ethical case for the dispersal of cultural artifacts is made eloquently by James Cuno, the director of the Art Institute of Chicago, in his 2008 book, “Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage.” You can read a summary of his position in the introduction to a new book of essays edited by Dr. Cuno, “Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities.” Here are some excerpts from that introduction by Dr. Cuno:

It is the nature of culture to be dynamic and ever changing. Yet national governments ignore this fact. They impose a national claim of distinction on culture, and they seek an ancient pedigree for that culture. They want to claim primacy as much as purity: ancient origins and uninterrupted identity. But this is only politics. Modern Egypt’s claim of descent from pharaonic Egypt, or the People’s Republic of China from the ancient Qin, or Iraq from Mesopotamia, or Italy from ancient Rome is nationalist fantasy based on the accident of geography and enforced by sovereignty. Just ask the Copts in Egypt, the Tibetans in China or the Kurds in Iraq. …
This is why it is imperative that we continue building encyclopedic museum collections and provide safe harbor within them for unprovenanced antiquities. They, no less than the other objects in our collections, are important artifacts of human history, evidence of our common artistic legacy, deserving of our respect. They have equal claim on the Enlightenment ideal of the museum as a repository of things and knowledge, dedicated to the museum’s role as a force for understanding, tolerance and the dissipation of ignorance and superstition about the world, where the artifacts of one time and one culture can be seen next to those of other times and other cultures without prejudice. Such is the promise of the museum.

Another argument in favor of dispersing antiquities is that they would be better protected. Spreading them around the world eliminates the risk of them all being destroyed in one place. And it can be safer to rely on an array of private collectors and museums than to count on a national government (particularly if the government is corrupt). Private dealers are often blamed for encouraging looting, but they would prefer to buy artifacts that are legitimately excavated because that provenance makes them more valuable. I’ve previously written about a proposal by economists to create more incentives for private exploration and preservation of antiquities.
I suspect some Lab readers have other arguments. I welcome your thoughts. Who should own antiquity?